logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.12 2015가단108772
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000 and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from July 25, 2014 to July 12, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) requested C to perform the Doing Construction Work (hereinafter “the instant Doing Construction Work”) of the D Apartment 105 Dong 104 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s apartment”); and (b) accordingly, C prepared a written estimate of the total construction cost of the instant Doing Construction Work with KRW 1,245,000 (new light width of KRW 420,000, KRW 105,000, KRW 720,000, and KRW 720,000).

B. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant et al. received the direction of the said C, and performed the design construction work on the Plaintiff’s apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

가. 피고는 2014. 7. 25. 이 사건 도배공사를 실시하면서 곰팡이가 슬고 습기로 들떠 있는 기존 벽지와 부직포를 제거하지 않은 채 초배지를 바르지 않고 새 벽지를 도배하였고, 이로 인해 새 벽지가 변색되고 들뜨고 꿀렁거리게 되었다.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3 million for damages caused by the tort.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first proposal”). (b)

During the proceeding of this case, the Defendant made a false statement or submitted a document stating the same purport to the effect that “the Plaintiff was a lawful attempt to conceal the fact that the Defendant performed the Gelim Doing Corporation,” and (2) made a insult and defamation of the Plaintiff by submitting a document stating that “the Plaintiff was not a construction cost and personnel expenses by making a false fact and making it false.” ③ The Defendant, upon receipt of a fine due to defamation, submitted a written confirmation to this court on March 4, 2015, which was prepared by the commission of the construction to conceal the Geliming Corporation, to the effect that the Plaintiff was a false attempt to conceal the fact that the Defendant was subject to the imposition of the fine due to defamation, and committed the litigation fraud, and ④ the Plaintiff did not comply with this court’s order to avoid concealment of defamation, thereby delaying the submission of a summary order.

arrow